The Thumb design switch.

james brunnning said:
I like that Warwick has the CS so you can get the same wood combonations as on the older models,and now you can get the thinner neck as an option.Not to many companys are as big as Warwick and offer such choices. :)
Click to expand...

I think the underlined part can be removed, and the sentence is still correct. :twisted: We are very spoiled. 8)
 
I love my newer Warwicks; the Thumb NT seems sleeker in shape and the LTD's (Streamer Std. & Dirty Blonde) are unique. I also like a thicker neck, having come from an Ibanez BTB where the neck was too paper thin for me:



I also like that the CS can still give you the variety of the earlier production models, if you want.

But I must agree most with this statement: "I guess as long as we all enjoy our 'Wicks that's all that matters." Too true. It's time to play and enjoy what we have in common, not worry about what is different. When it is a Warwick, it's ALL good! :D
 
True, I mean, look at Rickenbacker. They're charging insane prices now for the same instruments, because they don't want to become big. They have one little factory and have no wish to expand. Demand keeps rising, so do the prices.

I personally don't agree with that approach but it's a valid one.

Warwick decided to try to become bigger, so they had to change methods.
 
wasaabe8797 said:
I have never seen a newer 'Wick that has a body design that is 'smoother' or more 'refined' then my vintage ones.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the fact that the vintage Thumbs have a slightly different design compared to the newer Thumbs. The vintage ones are slighly "teardrop" shaped.


Vintage:



New:
 
ThirdthumB said:
wasaabe8797 said:
I have never seen a newer 'Wick that has a body design that is 'smoother' or more 'refined' then my vintage ones.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the fact that the vintage Thumbs have a slightly different design compared to the newer Thumbs. The vintage ones are slighly "teardrop" shaped.


Vintage:



New:
Click to expand...

Actually, I have 2 vintage thumbs, and the fretted one has that 'offset' teardrop shape, which I rather enjoy, and the fretless has a more evenly rounded bottom just like the one in your picture labeled 'new'.

These are the slight differences that would appear between some of the vintage 'Wicks that I mentioned earlier, and that I love. This is, to me, what gave them that boutique, and handmade feel, like each bass had its' own character, and wasn't as cookie-cutter.

So we agree on the differences, we just like the oppisite it would appear.

By the way very nice Bass collection you have there. I am a big fan of the Infinity body design. The J Bass and MM are very nice as well.

I too would post a pic of my 'stable' if I wasn't a retard and could figure out how to do it like you did....... :?
 
Haven't had the time to read all this but the shape of the thump changed as well. Here's a 89 NT-6 in comparison with my 04. Recon the change in body shape?

The upper horn on the 89 ends at the 22nd fret, while mine ends at 24....

My upper horn is longer than the 89 series....
 
It looks like from the body shape of the vintage Thumbs that the dreaded neck-dive would be less of an issue than it is with the newer ones. No?
 
At least as far as four strings go I have zero neck dive on either of mine. I've read on here that people have neck dive with older thumbs too, not me though. I have a nice medium width strap for each and no problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top